Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Kimatha Madden v. Lillian Parrish
Date: 04-21-2011
Case Number: 14-10-01058-CV
Judge: Per Curiam
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District on appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2, Harris County
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Appellant, Kimatha Madden, appeals the county court at law's judgment reversing the justice court's judgment in her favor. We affirm.
Background
On April 27, 2010, appellant filed a statement of claim in justice court alleging that her sister, appellee Lillian Parrish, had taken property that belonged to appellant. The justice court issued a judgment in which it found that appellant was entitled to recover $2500.00 from appellee. Appellee appealed the justice court's decision to the county court at law for a trial de novo. On October 18, 2010, the county court at law signed a take nothing judgment in favor of appellee. On October 25, 2010, appellant filed a notice of appeal of the county court's judgment. On December 9, 2010, the court reporter for County Civil Court at Law No. 2 filed a letter with this court stating that no record had been made of the trial in county court.
Appellant's Brief
On January 18, 2011, appellant filed a brief, which states:
Please consider this letter as Appellant's brief. In appeal of my upcoming court date, I am requesting the court to appeal the last court hearing. At this time, I would like to submit more information that was not presented. I pray the court will consider information in the last hearing the Appellant testified with many untrue statements, which I would like prove by witnesses. I feel I am truly deserving for reimbursement of all my person [sic] belongs in which she did destroy, which the first hearing did grant, $2500. I would like the opportunity to request the court to total maxium [sic] amount offered in a small claims court.
On January 20, 2011, this court issued an order stating that appellant's brief did not substantially comply with Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court ordered appellant to file an amended brief that complied with the rule. On February 9, 2011, appellant filed an amended brief, which was an exact duplicate of the brief filed January 18, 2011.
Appellate briefs are to be construed reasonably, yet liberally, so that the right to appellate review is not lost by waiver. El Paso Natural Gas v. Minco Oil & Gas, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 309, 316 (Tex. 1999). Appellate courts should reach the merits of an appeal whenever reasonably possible. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex. 1997). Nonetheless, it is the appellant's burden to properly raise and discuss the issues presented for review. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f); Canton-Carter v. Baylor College of Medicine, 271 S.W.3d 928, 930 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). "It would be inappropriate for this Court to attempt to re-draft and articulate what we believe [appellant] may have intended to raise as error on appeal.†Valadez v. Avita, 238 S.W.3d 843 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.).
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure control the required contents and the organization for an appellate brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. One of those requirements is that an appellant's brief must concisely state all issues or points presented for review. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f). An issue presented for appellate review is sufficient if it directs the reviewing court's attention to the error about which the complaint is made. Canton-Carter, 271 S.W.3d at 931. Appellant's brief does not meet this requirement as it does not point out any error allegedly committed by the trial court or attack any ruling made by the court. An appellate court has no duty—or even right—to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether there was error. Id. Were we to do so, even on behalf of a pro se appellant, we would be abandoning our role as neutral adjudicators and become an advocate for that party. Valadez, 238 S.W.3d at 845.
* * *
See: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=88172
Background
On April 27, 2010, appellant filed a statement of claim in justice court alleging that her sister, appellee Lillian Parrish, had taken property that belonged to appellant. The justice court issued a judgment in which it found that appellant was entitled to recover $2500.00 from appellee. Appellee appealed the justice court's decision to the county court at law for a trial de novo. On October 18, 2010, the county court at law signed a take nothing judgment in favor of appellee. On October 25, 2010, appellant filed a notice of appeal of the county court's judgment. On December 9, 2010, the court reporter for County Civil Court at Law No. 2 filed a letter with this court stating that no record had been made of the trial in county court.
Appellant's Brief
On January 18, 2011, appellant filed a brief, which states:
Please consider this letter as Appellant's brief. In appeal of my upcoming court date, I am requesting the court to appeal the last court hearing. At this time, I would like to submit more information that was not presented. I pray the court will consider information in the last hearing the Appellant testified with many untrue statements, which I would like prove by witnesses. I feel I am truly deserving for reimbursement of all my person [sic] belongs in which she did destroy, which the first hearing did grant, $2500. I would like the opportunity to request the court to total maxium [sic] amount offered in a small claims court.
On January 20, 2011, this court issued an order stating that appellant's brief did not substantially comply with Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court ordered appellant to file an amended brief that complied with the rule. On February 9, 2011, appellant filed an amended brief, which was an exact duplicate of the brief filed January 18, 2011.
Appellate briefs are to be construed reasonably, yet liberally, so that the right to appellate review is not lost by waiver. El Paso Natural Gas v. Minco Oil & Gas, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 309, 316 (Tex. 1999). Appellate courts should reach the merits of an appeal whenever reasonably possible. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex. 1997). Nonetheless, it is the appellant's burden to properly raise and discuss the issues presented for review. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f); Canton-Carter v. Baylor College of Medicine, 271 S.W.3d 928, 930 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). "It would be inappropriate for this Court to attempt to re-draft and articulate what we believe [appellant] may have intended to raise as error on appeal.†Valadez v. Avita, 238 S.W.3d 843 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.).
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure control the required contents and the organization for an appellate brief. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. One of those requirements is that an appellant's brief must concisely state all issues or points presented for review. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f). An issue presented for appellate review is sufficient if it directs the reviewing court's attention to the error about which the complaint is made. Canton-Carter, 271 S.W.3d at 931. Appellant's brief does not meet this requirement as it does not point out any error allegedly committed by the trial court or attack any ruling made by the court. An appellate court has no duty—or even right—to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether there was error. Id. Were we to do so, even on behalf of a pro se appellant, we would be abandoning our role as neutral adjudicators and become an advocate for that party. Valadez, 238 S.W.3d at 845.
* * *
See: http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=88172
Outcome:
Because appellant’s amended brief fails to comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, she has waived her issues on appeal. Valdez, 238 S.W.3d at 845. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Kimatha Madden v. Lillian Parrish?
The outcome was: Because appellant’s amended brief fails to comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, she has waived her issues on appeal. Valdez, 238 S.W.3d at 845. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Which court heard Kimatha Madden v. Lillian Parrish?
This case was heard in Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District on appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2, Harris County, TX. The presiding judge was Per Curiam.
When was Kimatha Madden v. Lillian Parrish decided?
This case was decided on April 21, 2011.